Under your dictionary definition, would you say that the Allies in WWII committed genocide of Germans and Japanese? If you say "yes", then I suppose you're entitled to your interpretation, and I know exactly how seriously to take it. If you say "no" then perhaps you could explain what is the difference between WWII (where proportionally far more civilians were killed) and the current Gaza war.
> you can maintain that attachment and still condemn horrific acts committed by the state when they happen
I agree. And one can refrain from condemning horrific acts that one is not certain happened.
I'm happy to continue the discussion if you like, but all I'm really after is your answer to this simple question: do you see defence of true genocide as equally bad as false accusation of genocide? I would be content with a simple yes or no. Or does the question make you uncomfortable somehow?
> the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group.
I didn't read the arguments of the people you cited because you didn't bother to link to them, but looking at their credentials, I'm not sure either of them are in a position to solidly refute the scores of footage and testimony to the contrary. The only people I've seen defending this have some kind of personal attachment to Israel, but come on, man, you can maintain that attachment and still condemn horrific acts committed by the state when they happen.